Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CJ Products v Snuggly Plushez

CJ Products v Snuggly Plushez

Ratings: (0)|Views: 758|Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on Aug 26, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK---------------------------------------------------------XCJ PRODUCTS LLC and ONTELPRODUCTS CORPORATION,Plaintiffs,-against-
 11-CV-0715 (RRM)(SMG)SNUGGLY PLUSHEZ LLC and BERKANTKEISKBAS,Defendants.-----------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs CJ Products LLC (“CJ”) and Ontel Products Corporation (“Ontel”)(collectively, “plaintiffs”) brought this action on February 14, 2011
against defendants SnugglyPlushez, LLC (“Snuggly”) and Berkant Keiskbas (“Keiskbas”) (collectively, “defendants”)alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and related claims as to one of theirproducts. (
Compl. (Doc. No. 1).) In May 2011, plaintiffs moved for a preliminaryinjunction. (Doc. Nos. 7-12.) The Court held an extensive preliminary injunction hearing onJune 24, 2011. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunctionpursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED. This Memorandumand Order constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
CJ is a company that develops, produces, sells, and distributes toys. The subject of thismotion is one of its most popular products – a plush toy in the shape of an animal that unfoldsinto a flat pillow known as a “Pillow Pet.” This product was introduced in 2003 and brandedwith several different registered trademarks, including MY PILLOW PETS®, MY PILLOWPETS® (with logo), and IT’S A PILLOW, IT’S A PET, IT’S A PET . . . IT’S A PILLOW
Case 1:11-cv-00715-RRM-SMG Document 28 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 1049
PET®. (Pl.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (Doc. No. 21) at 6.) CJ is in the midst of registering the trademark PILLOW PETS™; at the time of this action the process had passedthrough the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registration period andstalled in the opposition period. CJ granted to Ontel the exclusive license to manufacture,market, advertise, promote, sell, offer to sell, and distribute the pillow pet line of products, andan exclusive license to all related intellectual property. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-25.)Defendant Snuggly Plushez (“Plushez”) is also a corporation that develops, produces,sells, and distributes toys, including selling toys by website. (
. ¶¶ 31-33.) Plaintiffs allege that“Defendant Snuggly [Plushez] was under the de facto and sole control and served as the alteregos of Defendant Keiskbas, who is an officer, director, or board member of this entity.” (
. ¶6.) Plaintiffs learned that defendants were selling merchandise quite similar to their “Pillow Pet”product line. Likewise, when plaintiffs investigated these sales, they found that defendants wereusing marks resembling those they had registered, and that they purchased and used GoogleAdWords
to direct potential customers to their sites using these marks.Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction, enjoining and restraining defendants andtheir agents from: (1) manufacturing, copying, distributing, or selling any plush toy substantiallysimilar to CJ’s designs for Lady Bug, VA-1-665-418; Panda, VA 1-679-223; Bumble Bee, VA1-665-417; Penguin, VA-674-371; Bear, VA 1-715-257; Dolphin, VA 1-674-379: Frog, VA 1-674-372; Monkey, VA 1-674-374; Duck, VA 1-715-275; and Cow, VA 1-715-272, pendingfurther order of this Court or a determination of the action; (2) using PILLOW PETS™, MYPILLOW PETS®, IT’S A PILLOW, IT’S A PET, IT’S A PILLOW PET®, pillowpets.co,“authentic pillow pets” or any confusingly similar mark, or any colorable imitations thereof, as atrademark, service mark, trade name, domain name and website, Google AdWord or otherwise
See infra
Section IV.
Case 1:11-cv-00715-RRM-SMG Document 28 Filed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 1050
on tags, labels or packaging, in connection with the wholesale, retail and/or Internet sale of plushtoys; (3) using PILLOW PETS™, MY PILLOW PETS®, IT’S A PILLOW, IT’S A PET, IT’S APILLOW PET®, or any confusingly similar mark, or any colorable imitations thereof, in anyadvertising, promotions, solicitations or Internet use (including, but not limited to, website,domain name, coupon, and/or social networks) for such wholesale, retail and/or Internet sale; (4)using the terms “authentic,” “original,” “official,” “As Seen On TV” or other similar confusingterms in connection with the wholesale, resale and/or Internet sale of Plushez or Napies plushtoys; (5) making any other false associations with Plaintiff or plaintiffs PILLOW PETS™, MYPILLOW PETS®, IT’S A PILLOW, IT’S A PET, IT’S A PILLOW PET®, products inconnection with the wholesale, resale and/or Internet sale of Plushez or Napies plush toys; (6)using third party reviews of PILLOW PETS™, MY PILLOW PETS®, IT’S A PILLOW, IT’S APET, IT’S A PILLOW PET® products; and (7) destroying, mutilating, concealing altering,transferring, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, any books, records, documents, emails,correspondence, brochures, manuals, or other documents of any kind relating to defendants’ saleof plush toys in the possession custody or control of any of the defendants until further order of this Court.For the reasons stated below, the motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED in itsentirety.
Whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of thedistrict court.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co.
, 241 F.3d 232, 237 (2d Cir. 2001);
P & Gv. Ultreo, Inc.
, 574 F. Supp. 2d 339, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). A “party seeking a preliminaryinjunction must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction, and (2) either
Case 1:11-cv-00715-RRM-SMG Document 28 Filed 08/22/11 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 1051

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Eric Goldman liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->